Amit Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79712 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2019 Thana- SOHSARAI District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.
Amit Kumar Gupta Son of Late Chandra Prasad Gupta Resident of Village - Badi Pahadi, Mansur Nagar, P.S.- Sohsarai, District- Nalanda. 2.
Munna Kumar Gupta Son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad Gupta Resident of Village - Badi Pahadi, Mansur Nagar, P.S.- Sohsarai, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vinit Kumar with Mrs. Divya, Advocates For the State :
Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Sohsarai PS Case No. 282 of 2019 dated 19.10.2019 instituted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. The allegation against the petitioners and one other is of selling illicit wine.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that coaccused Sonu Kumar was tenant in their house and from his room liquor were recovered and they have no connection with the same.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79712 of 2019 dt.19-12-2019 2/2
5. Learned APP submitted that both the petitioners have antecedent under the Excise Act and further that the police on specific information, that the petitioners along with Sonu Kumar, their tenant, were indulging in selling liquor, conducted raid and recovered 35 litres of spirit as also huge quantity of different types of liquors. It was submitted that during the raid, two persons managed to run away and Sonu Kumar had disclosed that it was the petitioners who had run away.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Ranjeet/Rahul AFR/NAFR U T